Then they have to code in some kind of participation system. Otherwise people will flood the map to get into the structure for their loot. The Warclaw queues were nothing compared to the kittenstorm that would bring.

They could up the rewards from the lords, if anything. But I don't like the idea of lootable chests. Then we get Istan v2.0.

WvW™ - where you find more Red Rings of Death than an Xbox repair facility.

@Etterwyn.5263 said:
Then they have to code in some kind of participation system. Otherwise people will flood the map to get into the structure for their loot. The Warclaw queues were nothing compared to the kittenstorm that would bring.

They could up the rewards from the lords, if anything. But I don't like the idea of lootable chests. Then we get Istan v2.0.

Flipping high tier objectives with a lot of defenders is not something you can do that easily, you still need some coordination and balance of healing, boons and damage. Not something your everyday Istan/SW farmer can do considering that their build involves pressing 2 buttons and autoattack spam.

Besides, if every map has queues then all objrctives will be t0 (like they were during warclaw launch) which means no rewards.

Deso's favorite FROG
Master of afk and kiting
The God of Pips and Gud Deeps
Froggo himself

@Etterwyn.5263 said:
Then they have to code in some kind of participation system. Otherwise people will flood the map to get into the structure for their loot. The Warclaw queues were nothing compared to the kittenstorm that would bring.

They could up the rewards from the lords, if anything. But I don't like the idea of lootable chests. Then we get Istan v2.0.

Flipping high tier objectives with a lot of defenders is not something you can do that easily, you still need some coordination and balance of healing, boons and damage. Not something your everyday Istan/SW farmer can do considering that their build involves pressing 2 buttons and autoattack spam.

Besides, if every map has queues then all objrctives will be t0 (like they were during warclaw launch) which means no rewards.

high tier objective flipping cannot be too rewarding compared to t0.
if it is too rewarding, people will still farm it on each side and complain about people trying to keep hostile objectives at t0 for 'griefing'. just like in some old day event trains people were insulted for finishing an event. i dont think it is good to reward playing bad, already people do not play with a focus on the keeping enemy objectives low tier while upgrading their own (or at least most suck at it if they are trying).
however increasing overall reward in WvW would be awesome. the problem is that there is hardly a metric to measure contribution, in pve it might be ok to reward participation but in competitive modes one would need to reward contribution. i would like rewards based on players involved (like more loot on a solo kill than a zerg kill or more loot from solo/few people flipping towers/keeps than doing it with a zerg) but that also does have some issues like 'toxicity' against people who do participate and not contribute while diminishing the loot.

@Gop.8713 said:
This isn't a terrible idea, but I would argue that wvw should do more to attract ppl who like to fight bc fights and less to attract ppl who like loot. We all have pve for that . . .

true but like to fight should not be a punishment or an disadvantage. For example Raids are for people who like challange but its still extremly rewarding.

also it would be closer to real battles where after u take over a castle u start looting the treasures of ur enemies

Any time you introduce more loots into a competitive game mode you encourage ppl to game the system to receive the loots. Bandwagoning for easy wins is arguably one of wvw's primary problems right now despite its not even being a rewarded behavior under the current system. Increasing rewards for 'winning' is something anet should consider only when/if they can develop a system that guarantees even matchups . . .

He needs to look at his bank. Most of the mats needed for the legendary armor can be acquired through daily play. He has laurels, mats in his bank, etc.

I have two sets of armor, have only map completed in PvE during the same timeframe and have the need for only tickets in the third set. (Took a break from the game)

I agree this sounds like a strange problem. It sounds like he could also possibly benefit from alternate reward track choices. It would be easier to help if we knew exactly what he was missing, but this is veering off the topic of the thread already, which was increasing rewards for capping and holding objectives, which would be nice but would create problems in the current wvw environment . . .

@Etterwyn.5263 said:
Then they have to code in some kind of participation system. Otherwise people will flood the map to get into the structure for their loot. The Warclaw queues were nothing compared to the kittenstorm that would bring.

They could up the rewards from the lords, if anything. But I don't like the idea of lootable chests. Then we get Istan v2.0.

Well maybe I’m biased, I dont mind to fight heavy sieged structures. Coomanders need to know how to deal with that besides run away ant ktrain something empty....
I always condemned anet devs by the poor mechanics they have, maybe SMC or each important keep in each map could have its own mechanic to add to the alliance/server, like new mount, new siege weapon like a charrtank, a lot can be done to make game more rewarding w/o being. 1111 and bag is full every 20minutes, most m8 want this cause they are ktrainning for loot and not for gameplay nor strategy.

As a wvw player since release I feel wvw already has way to much bags and overall loot, imo should me needed kinda hard.

I think the participation method is the only way to prevent death screams of all sorts. We all know what happens when given the chance to win for rewards are like. Burnout, bandwagons, steamrolls. What happens to the side that can do nothing but lose continously? It might make a bunch of people leave or turn really sour. If there is a way to balance hourly matchups or even making them shorter, then maybe the rewards thing wouldn't be as bad as the cycling would be really quick. Is that what we want for this mode though? Maybe they should hold a weeklong event to see how ultra short matchups [30m-1hr] are like to test the waters, and see if it interests or bores people. How much time does the average player have to invest in playing wvw? Maybe use that as a reference point and think of a way to reward accordingly.

@DemonSeed.3528 said:
I think the participation method is the only way to prevent death screams of all sorts. We all know what happens when given the chance to win for rewards are like. Burnout, bandwagons, steamrolls. What happens to the side that can do nothing but lose continously? It might make a bunch of people leave or turn really sour. If there is a way to balance hourly matchups or even making them shorter, then maybe the rewards thing wouldn't be as bad as the cycling would be really quick. Is that what we want for this mode though? Maybe they should hold a weeklong event to see how ultra short matchups [30m-1hr] are like to test the waters, and see if it interests or bores people. How much time does the average player have to invest in playing wvw? Maybe use that as a reference point and think of a way to reward accordingly.

The problem with 30 minute to 1 hour ‘matches’ is the resetting of objectives. That is a several minute process. That will get old if it happens every 30 minutes..

And then, there is no purpose to upgrading objectives which, would it just be a ktrain?

8 hour matches might work as a trial.

Or, a trial at some point of what they noted scoring wise that they were looking at.

Of course, making ‘off hours’ count less really will upset some who feel like their time isn’t as ‘valuable’ as others.

@Gop.8713 said:
This isn't a terrible idea, but I would argue that wvw should do more to attract ppl who like to fight bc fights and less to attract ppl who like loot. We all have pve for that . . .

true but like to fight should not be a punishment or an disadvantage. For example Raids are for people who like challange but its still extremly rewarding.

also it would be closer to real battles where after u take over a castle u start looting the treasures of ur enemies

Any time you introduce more loots into a competitive game mode you encourage ppl to game the system to receive the loots. Bandwagoning for easy wins is arguably one of wvw's primary problems right now despite its not even being a rewarded behavior under the current system. Increasing rewards for 'winning' is something anet should consider only when/if they can develop a system that guarantees even matchups . . .

This.

Any rewards added to WvW would have to be unrelated to content or game play which goes against the game mode primary intent.

Warhammer Online had better rewards in its RvR. Guess what happened, people found the most efficient ways to farm rewards, ALWAYS. Yes, this included not engaging the enemy or circle retaking objectives while avoiding fights. We are talking about a MMO which primary player base supposedly was RVR focused intentionally not playing RvR for the loots.

So no, towers are fine as is. I'd even go as far and say remove all loot reward from open world WvW and roll them into reward tracks or some kind of out side system. Leave the rewards for killing players.

I'm coming from the perspective of an open world pve player that's done a decent amount of loot grinding who is starting to get more into wvw.

I personally feel like the mode could really benefit from increased rewards from things but it shouldn't be turned into a loot grind. Only way I can really see that happening is if capping and holding objectives becomes more rewarding in some way, not initially capping the objective. If you make capping rewarding people will just farm it and intentionally let it fall. If you have to defend it to get better rewards, I think that would encourage people to play the mode normally.

More loot will lead to musical keeps, Warhammer Online already tried that. Players will always find the path to least resistance. If avoiding enemies and taking keeps will lead to better rewards, then they'll do exact that as WAR showed. There needs to be more rewards for player vs player interaction, and less emphasis on keeps & siege. Taking T3 keeps are such a pain that most just avoid them completely. Currently the "reward" for attacking T3 keeps is to hope to draw enemy groups to you so you can have a fight.

Unfortunately sometimes enemies just decide to stay inside the keeps and you end up wasting a lot of time waiting for them to come out. Whatever rewards they add to WvW, they really need to be more about player engagement.

Wvw doesn't need to be turned into a loot karma train, there's plenty of pve zones for that.

^ Another derailing post - Anet
Perma stealth is needed to outrun zergs - Thieves
A skill overpowered? just nerf their dodge, balanced. - Anet
There's no power creep you just don't recognize more people hitting you - Flat Earther

I find it amusing that you get the same reward for flipping a paper keep in a few mins compared to T3 keep which probably take forever yet 'scaling' exists regarding killing players who've been alive for longer including event completion (bronze/silv/gold).

@Zephyra.4709 said:
I find it amusing that you get the same reward for flipping a paper keep in a few mins compared to T3 keep which probably take forever yet 'scaling' exists regarding killing players who've been alive for longer including event completion (bronze/silv/gold).

The advantage of flipping the higher tiered keep is that you rob your opponent of the increased ppt . . .

Allow full loot for killing other players. Take their items just like in oldschool runescape. Then we'll see all the players running around shaking with real fear. It's the only way to encourage pvp and get all of the pvers with their legendaries to quit the game.

Allow full loot for killing other players. Take their items just like in oldschool runescape. Then we'll see all the players running around shaking with real fear. It's the only way to encourage pvp and get all of the pvers with their legendaries to quit the game.

It's called risk vs reward. If you want your advantages of ascended or legendary stat swap then you risk it. If you want to run around in exotics purchased with the excess badges of honor wvwers have then do so. It's up to you but of course Arenanet would never add such hardcore mechanics to a casual game. Players wouldn't even leave spawn in this game if such a thing existed. Goes to show that all the real pvp goes on in other games.

@Balsa.3951 said:
there should be way more reason to get the main castle in EBG under control. loot boxes which refresh every half hour if u hold objectives and a lot of loot if u take one

Look, i get it, people want to incentivise attacking things. It's the glamorous side of WvW, but you HAVE to consider defending at the same time. I think it's important that defending be recognised and rewarded.
If attacking is overemphasised to such a great degree, it won't be long before we hear, "just let them cap it because we get more for recapping than for defending" .

@gavyne.6847 said:
Taking T3 keeps are such a pain that most just avoid them completely. Currently the "reward" for attacking T3 keeps is to hope to draw enemy groups to you so you can have a fight.

Unfortunately sometimes enemies just decide to stay inside the keeps and you end up wasting a lot of time waiting for them to come out. Whatever rewards they add to WvW, they really need to be more about player engagement.

The incentive to attack T3 stuff is to knock off their Waypoints. That's the key-with waypoints their time-to-entry to your side of the map is reduced, you make life difficult for them, embarrass them, demoralise them.

Attacking T3 things is an onus that is placed upon commanders. As you note, much of the time players will hang about inside T3s, scouting, defending - that's not by choice. That's usually because they have no commander. Attacking only happens when a side has a commander.

Conversely, if you make the rewards about player engagement, as you suggest, you will advocate a meta of "standing in a field" trading kills and ignoring structures entirely. Whatever they implement MUST encourage both player interaction AND objectives - if they want the game played as intended.

@XenesisII.1540 said:
Wvw doesn't need to be turned into a loot karma train, there's plenty of pve zones for that.

That’s what wvw already is.

Huehuehuehuehue

Not on my server, we're too busy tanking yet again.

Huehuehuehuehue XD

^ Another derailing post - Anet
Perma stealth is needed to outrun zergs - Thieves
A skill overpowered? just nerf their dodge, balanced. - Anet
There's no power creep you just don't recognize more people hitting you - Flat Earther

@Balsa.3951 said:
there should be way more reason to get the main castle in EBG under control. loot boxes which refresh every half hour if u hold objectives and a lot of loot if u take one

Look, i get it, people want to incentivise attacking things. It's the glamorous side of WvW, but you HAVE to consider defending at the same time. I think it's important that defending be recognised and rewarded.
If attacking is overemphasised to such a great degree, it won't be long before we hear, "just let them cap it because we get more for recapping than for defending" .

thats exactly why i wrote that by holding keeps a treasure chest or something else will spawn periodic. The idea is to make holding and attacking harder to archive objectives more rewarding

It's called risk vs reward. If you want your advantages of ascended or legendary stat swap then you risk it. If you want to run around in exotics purchased with the excess badges of honor wvwers have then do so. It's up to you but of course Arenanet would never add such hardcore mechanics to a casual game. Players wouldn't even leave spawn in this game if such a thing existed. Goes to show that all the real pvp goes on in other games.

@Gop.8713 said:
This isn't a terrible idea, but I would argue that wvw should do more to attract ppl who like to fight bc fights and less to attract ppl who like loot. We all have pve for that . . .

Maybe beter would’be to remove all loot from structures and give treasure chest every 1h of structure holding, eachbstructure would give unique items and mats compared with other structures.

That just encourages ppl to siege up their structures and hide inside . . .

I think they've got rewards right as it is: Award participation over time and define participation as pretty much any constructive thing anyone might feel like doing . . .

That’s ironic isn’t it? Ppl wanted more pvp in wvw and less pve but when u encourage people to actively defend keeps and produce pvp people complain again?

Ppl avoid defended keeps precisely bc it limits pvp . . .

so ur logic is nobody inside a keep is pvp except the npcs..... OKEY

You don't seem to be very interested in an honest discourse on this topic, which is confusing since you are the OP. Why did you begin the topic if you were not seeking feedback from others . . ?

U be heard don’t worry , also I’m happy it seems I be heard as well and anet plan on implementing something not so far from my suggestion.

Devs want to add rewards for attacking defended objectives instead of win trading, rewards for attacking a defended keep should be better than rewards for an empty keep, rewards should scale with structure level, still in paper design phase and devs hope to start prototyping soon

@Gop.8713 said:
This isn't a terrible idea, but I would argue that wvw should do more to attract ppl who like to fight bc fights and less to attract ppl who like loot. We all have pve for that . . .

Maybe beter would’be to remove all loot from structures and give treasure chest every 1h of structure holding, eachbstructure would give unique items and mats compared with other structures.

That just encourages ppl to siege up their structures and hide inside . . .

I think they've got rewards right as it is: Award participation over time and define participation as pretty much any constructive thing anyone might feel like doing . . .

That’s ironic isn’t it? Ppl wanted more pvp in wvw and less pve but when u encourage people to actively defend keeps and produce pvp people complain again?

Ppl avoid defended keeps precisely bc it limits pvp . . .

so ur logic is nobody inside a keep is pvp except the npcs..... OKEY

You don't seem to be very interested in an honest discourse on this topic, which is confusing since you are the OP. Why did you begin the topic if you were not seeking feedback from others . . ?

U be heard don’t worry , also I’m happy it seems I be heard as well and anet plan on implementing something not so far from my suggestion.

Devs want to add rewards for attacking defended objectives instead of win trading, rewards for attacking a defended keep should be better than rewards for an empty keep, rewards should scale with structure level, still in paper design phase and devs hope to start prototyping soon

I think players just want to be high rewarded by figthing smallers groups while their group has tons of scourges, fb, hammer spam revs etc...then say we areall about fights we dont care about strutures rewards....

I do like the incentivation of creating pvp arround strucutres, and the rewards system dev's talked about looked very interesting.

@GUFF.5692 said:
Rewards should scale based on how many people you defeated to take/complete an objective.

Your small 6 man havoc took a tower while under assault from 15 defenders? >>> More loot

Your 50 man zerg took an undefended tower in less than 2 mins? <<<<< significantly less loot

WvW should not reward bad behavior.

hey hey hey, how do i know where the enemy is? if my enemy don't come to defend their tower/ keep, that's not my fault, why do i get punishment? bad behavior? you mean if i ram the gate and like when it down to 50% and there's no one come then i should stop and leave because if i continue on ramming and capping it that's a "bad behavior"? your suggestion makes no sense and will instantly kill WvW.

@GUFF.5692 said:
Rewards should scale based on how many people you defeated to take/complete an objective.

Your small 6 man havoc took a tower while under assault from 15 defenders? >>> More loot

Your 50 man zerg took an undefended tower in less than 2 mins? <<<<< significantly less loot

WvW should not reward bad behavior.

hey hey hey, how do i know where the enemy is? if my enemy don't come to defend their tower/ keep, that's not my fault, why do i get punishment? bad behavior? you mean if i ram the gate and like when it down to 50% and there's no one come then i should stop and leave because if i continue on ramming and capping it that's a "bad behavior"? your suggestion makes no sense and will instantly kill WvW.

I wanted to give arguments on what you say to prove you wrong. Then i Read your post again and Saw you had none....so i will Just say
'no'

Then they have to code in some kind of participation system. Otherwise people will flood the map to get into the structure for their loot. The Warclaw queues were nothing compared to the kittenstorm that would bring.

We already have a participation system, so simply sitting around won't do much. However we might need a participation system per map.
More ppl in WvW would be an awesome thing; of course the mode would have to be adapted to accomodate the amount of players. More ppl in WvW, who are not of the elitist mindset would also generally help the mode a lot.

What we currently have does not scale, and it's sad we've been sitting on that kind of solution for a long time.

"and then we know that we have looked back through the ivory gates into that world of wonder which was ours before we were wise and unhappy"
-- H. P. Lovecraft - Celephais